it imposes on legislation. there are several provisions to make our country safer. >> let me start with what the process is now in share it that over the past four years we have increased the number foand the coverage of the vetting that goes on. s someone is seeking asylum, they first have a screening interview to see whether they have presented any credible fear of persecution. that includes by graphic and by biomeio graphic and

tric information. they submit to a full-scale interview. this could be several hours. byis usually accompanied affidavits. one of the things we do is re fingerprint the individual to make sure its is the same individual. we vet and so forth. after a year, we can convert lpr status.

you are vetted once again. after five beers you can apply for naturalization. you can five years apply for naturalization. that is the current situation. it is very important. >> we heard testimony yesterday.

theree this feeling that is a principle behind this now andion legalize forest later. this is where i am coming from. i also you're assuming you read it. my questions come to some specifics. do you agree with my opening statement that upon enactment if it requires a tragedy strategy before legalization begins? >> which require some metals of a plan for infrastructure in four border security. -- it requires plans for a pressure and for border security. >> can tell the american people why they should trust the legislation to secure the border after 12 name people

commit legal status and the ability to live and work freely in the country? on the verybuild large investments they have made with in the border. it is the sustainment part that is so important. that is where we have experienced the gaps. we build on that. secondly, the bill actually thatrts border security two major drivers of migration across the border are labor and the fact it takes so long to get a legal visa. the bill deals with both of those problems and a way that gives us more metrics.

the border security measures already in place. officersll prohibits and renewing aliens to "appear untille" for legalization a final decision has been made. does this bill tied the hands of immigration eight hits in the same way the 1986 amnesty did? >> i do not believe so. this say did does there running and move it as quickly as possible. checks.security o get it out. did not renew somebody who is not a priority individual. the >> thank you for starting

out your statement in reference to the boston situation. i feel comfortable asking this question. several pilots have reported that two individuals responsible for the bombings were immigrants from chechnya. ofore they became the focus the investigation, authorities questioned a saudi student to is on a terrorist watch list. -- who was on a terrorist watch list. i trust you'll probably respond given the impact this could have on the immigration debate. was he on a watch list of? ? >> he was not. was in the wrong

place at the wrong time. he was never a subject or a person of interest. he was being interviewed. he was put on a watch list and then when it was determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the status was removed. >> with regard to the older brother, was your department aware of his travels to russia? if you were not, the reason. >> in 2012? yes. pinged when he was a leading the united states. by the time he returned the matter had been closed. >> is it true that his identity documents and not match his airline ticket?

>> there was a mismatch. the bill will help with this. it requires that passports be electronically readable as opposed to be mainly -- manually input. if it's human error out of the process. there are redundancies'. g when he wasd pin leaving the united states. it decade after 9/11 a terrorism case has come to light that me and bob an individual who overstayed his student his visa.

>> welcome. i have five questions of will try to go very fast. the first one is on e-verify. it is our understanding that you are planning to develop a pilot e-verify program for agricultural. i asked chuck who is ifresenting the industry they have heard of this. they had not. when will this begin at? who is responsible for that implementation? >> it is under the multipleation of cis, size that can be moved of rounds of other areas that may not have offices. my dream would be to have some application. the e-l does not have four.r until year

we will have multiple ways employers can verify legal residents. >> can you have your people talk with mr. connor? >> yes. >> flight schools. but a report last year by many flight schools to obtain students in exchange visitor programs certification from immigrations and forced them without being certified by the faa. 167 out of 434th flight training schools, 38% today do not have the required faa certification. unawared ice is often when they revoke certification for flight training providers. they are working with the faa to address this issue.

provideurances can you about efforts to improve its communications with the faa? >> we are very far along. a newalso moving from system governing institutions that educates student visa holders. this will help solve the problem. that. get to the silent screen process. under the present system, applicants for asylum must undergo a credible interviewed to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution in his or her county of origin. but the officer determines that they have a credible fear, the application is a long for further consideration.

streamlines the process partly by allowing a screening officer to grants asylum immediately following the interview. if this were to become law, how department in sure they're adequately screen for national security threats? permit togulations confer with the state department to verify the veracity of an applicant's claim. to what extent do they use the authority? are other barriers that prevent this between the agency's? encies? improved theeatly information available from the

get go in terms of what data bases are a check box. that source from the beginning when we collect this. with respect to the state department, we have very could relations with the state area which is the credible fear. >> you will check whether that is an accurate statement. >> yes. we do not take it as being valued. bille concern is that this truncates the process. i would just ask you to look at that. student visao the fraud. this is something i have been interested in since 9/11 when there was a lot of it in the country. schools goingked at

back to 2008, most of in 2011. eight of the 14 schools are in my state where there are very suspicious activities going on. have 10,500 schools approved by dhs to accept non-immigrant students. a letter to sent immigration and customs enforcement to express our concerns about a student visa fraud and a lack of information sharing. letter noted that isis will improve the ability toi.c.e.'s monitor international students

the second is expected to improve the ability to avoid fraud of which there is still plenty. is it on track to be fully operational by 2013 when this bill goes into effect in? >> that is my understanding. >> we will count on it. >> it goes to the fact that this bill builds on the security matters we are have in hand. we are well under way. that it willon is be implemented by the end of the year. >> good morning. got to start something i agree with you on. the border fencing, texas is

different from arizona and california and other places. they have recommended some tactical use of a fencing. the building a fence across the 2,000 miles southern border is the answer. a combination. i like to see flexibility with cutting up with the best strategy to achieve the goal. we agree. record show >> that is a good start. here is the harder part. in the bill, there are different measures for effective control of the border. it calls for a '90s term effectiveness rates. it to you know how many people

actually crossed the border and unbeknownst to the department and get away? we do not know the denominator. we know the numerator. >> that is one of the problem as using effectiveness rate as your only measure. as we continue to put in place of the technology according to the plant has minute to congress, we will live creature continents that we will have situational awareness. thatl share with you bet is an inherent problem, knowing the actual denominator. >> i thought it bizarre that we measure our success by the people we ketch but not focusing on the people who got away.

is an inherent problem. >> it is a number that is used as one of the many that taken gives you an overall picture. >> the department would have to gain effective control over high risk sectors along the border. tucson, theat the rio grande sector and the laredo sector. two in texas and one in arizona. is if they know where they're going to concentrate their efforts, they're going to redirect their efforts into areas that are not

as secure. >> this is the way it will work. all sectors will have protectors when in them. you want to fit your resources where the traffic is greatest. if it shifts, the resources will ship. able better to predict where we think that will move. >> the bill provides for an angle review. humancern is that traffickers are far more nimble. be in no decision seems to unworkable. drafted billat the

provides. we regularly review those numbers and make decisions. we would not wait for an annual review to make adjustments. >> on the number of people who get away, there was a story talking about radar technology the story suggested that as many as half of the people across the border get away undetected by the department of common security. you have any reason to disagree or deferred? >> yes. that story was misleading. they did not understand the technology. it has not even been used yet. something used in

the battlefield and transformed it frigid in transferring to the border. it did not take into account the fact, but there were apprehensions' been made around. i can give you more of a detailed briefing in a private setting which i think is more appropriate. that article was very inaccurate and incomplete. >> i would welcome that. 1996, the law of the land has mandated death the implementation of an automated entry/exit system. here are 16 years later and it still has not been done. what gives you any confidence ?hat it will be done that

>> we have enhanced our ability to link them in different ways. we have already submitted our plan for moving toward electronic verification. this is the plan we are already implementing. exit,ms of a biometric and we piloted that in detroit and a plant said. one of the issues is our airports are not designed to have those kind of exit lights. and just a plain architecture problem. we believe we can achieve that with an electronic record verification. this would be for both air nc. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you for being here. year and a bipartisan group of senators introduced an act which modernizes the waiver program, the wait times. there have been some dramatic changes made already. if you supportw this bill and if you think this is a good idea. we're financing improvements.

>> the administration is supportive of the waiver program. videoconferences and we're using in different areas. it is a tactical decision. it is 90 degrees in phoenix today. >> we have the mall of america. have had their resources stretched. can you speak to the potential benefits of? >> the bill does an excellent job of putting more resources at the border and specifying

resources to be used in a stone garden type of arrangement. i think there are some special provisions for arizona. supportive of state and local law enforcement. >> this is very important including in the immigration area. we have to use their audit team authorities to go in combat the use of all these programs. the resourcesove the government has to identify? how do you think this helps? >> the bill increases the body

of knowledge that we have available to us. it requires more by way of employees. it requires a secure identification to be issued. we should also be able to take the database and dump it into our matching data base. that will be very helpful. >> that is something we have all been talking about. >> on the improvement is to bring people out of the shadows. we know who they are. we know where they are. once these people know that every time they interact they will be subject to removal, it

will help with the reporting of crime. >> that to ask you about. this ind hard to get the violence against women act. we had been there. this.re trying to expand t how perpetrator's expand this of perpetrators used the law against victims. can explain how they work helps to protect the victims of their not afraid to come forward? >> this expense in number of visas that are available. . protections standpoint and our ability to prosecute those who are abusers is very

helpful. >> thank you. >> on thursday we are going to meet at 9:30 a.m. and said that sen because of a security 10:30 a.m.. we will need the quorum. >> thank you for joining us today. some of the questions i have had relayed to the amount of discretion that you and your successors will be given over

time should this become law. not mean to suggest that discretion is categorically bad. sometimes it is necessary. at where this would be invested in your office and ask about how it might work. in establishing the borders strategy, you will have a certain amount of discretion as to how much additional fencing might be deployed on the southern border region. you have discretion to certify when this is substantially complete. president obama states it in a speech in the past though that he believed the border fence was basically complete.

if you determine little or no additional fencing is necessary, what do think we this initial certify that it has been completed? is passed as it is think we written, i will move very quickly. we have sector by sector technology plans. we have not been sitting back waiting for a bill to pass. very quickly. >> do you believe the discretion could permit you to make a finding that is complete without building any additional fencing? right now the border patrol

has done an extensive study of where fencing make sense across the southwest border. there were 653 miles. we would go back and look at the kind of fencing is.

he can do this for humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity. in what situations which you think about granting the waiver? caveat on myo have the answers. see that there would be considerations based on the aid of a conviction, whether the individual was the primary wage , ther for the family

record sent a prior conviction, that kind of inclusive a valuation. >> it the aileron's other as to predicted thes., alien was authorized to work in the u.s., with those have been ?ollected dat

they were not big of a rise, it was a significant restriction. the intent of the bill is to make sure any people moving to rpi is paying all taxes. if the language has to be clarified, that is what the committee process is for. >> thank you very much. i see my time is expired. thank you very much. >> thank you. a wanted to thank you very much. this is a broad reaching portion. i'm grateful for you doing your

very best, particulate at this time when we open this hearing for reflections on the tragedies in boston and west texas. i am from the mid-atlantic, what assurance can negus of islam to great the ability to issues that >> this is to make sure that the additional activities are defined.

this'll help the economy grow and every state. >> there has been some discussion about discretion. under current practice they use the authority very sparingly. it said is have shown roughly 1% of all cases. how much more should we expect the department to exercise ?iscretion decks >> mardy do that pursuant to policy.

-- we do not think that is pursuant to policy. >> they spent time the information from own cases. significantspend time because there's a discovery .rocess >> provided we have the resources to pull the files, i would have no objection. one of the real logistical issues is contained in paper files. resources, anything we

can do to share mind this would be something to be considered. >> the department may have seen some benefits in terms of the overall efficiency. >> what privacy protections need to be put in place to ensure employers to not miss use the system? how with this legislation and improve on it? do you think it to be appropriate to give the states additional funds with the assumption they will meet this ?bligation tax >> theirallows them to put driver's license and database database.-verify

.> thank you very much thank you for your interest. >> thank you. it has been a real pleasure working with the a on this very important time. start with a waiver provisions. it is my understanding there is no waiver for in aggravated felony. areas are not wadable. >> that is my understanding. know that there is some discretion. trying to we're accomplish here, how much money have we spent on border security since 2005 or 6? >> billion spears >> multiple

billions. billions. >> multiple billions. it at 3500 more officers. it does. are stationed at the border. we have doubled in number since 2005 or six. we're adding 35 under more of a service to help secure the border. we're also trying to achieve a 24 hour/seven day we presence.

>> i would include different kinds of radar systems that work better. >> to appoint to spend $3 billion on carrying out the border enforcement strategy. >> we a line to allow the national guard to be deployed. >> that is rights. appreciate this mission assignments. i think it triples those under operation streamline. >> that is what we're doing to enhance the border itself. you agree with me that controlling jobs is just as important as securing the

border? >> at least as important. that is a major driver of illegal migration. dealing with the worker side is so important. >> these are not being overrun by 11 million. they come to visit. they go back home. we are being overrun by people with corrupt and poor countries. only should you secure the border, but the second line of defense is controlling the jobs. 40% of the people here illegally never came across the border. they came to a visa system.

one of the triggers is to get an injury and exit running so we know when it expires. the yes. >> the 19 hijackers were all students here on visas. that is correct. there are a number of ways that would beackers revealed under the bill. >> now we have a robust guest worker program providing legal labor to workers who cannot find this. the combination of systems worked in concert, increasing border security their technology and manpower, controlling at a

national level. providing access to labor was trying to achieve border security. interwoven system. absolutely. you said that the older brother, at the suspect was killed, when he left to go back to russia in 2012 the system picked up his departure but did not pick up him coming back. is that correct? >> that is my understanding. >> the text alone was more than one year old. >> after having taught to the fbi, they tell me they had no knowledge of them coming back.

the name was misspelled. more aboutalk to you this case. how in the world we know this at this early stage. as to the person giving information, i would imagine the 19 year old will tell us that his brother was the bad guy. >> this is a very active on going investigation. off threads are being pulled. there will be a classified briefing for the senssenate.

greg thank you. -- >> thank you. haveow you continue to urgent matters which require your attention. i want to thank you for pointing out that there are two main drivers of a legal border crossings. one is labor. so long for akes along legal visa to come into our country. this addresses both of the decreasing show us illegal border crossings. it allows us to focus our those who are smugglers and narco traffickers. >> it allows our priorities to

be where they ought to be in terms of enforcement. this will help millions of families with their loved ones. it also dramatically restrict the ability of some families to reignite research and loved ones. did this is a concern to those who are on the way list from asia. but i like to continue to work with the members of the committees and with all of you to seek improvements on the family provisions to include lgbt families. veterans have been waiting for decades to reunite with their children. need tohat compromises be made. there are some areas where it went further than it needed to. s the categories

and replaces it with a new mayor of based system. we believed it will eliminate many than members reunited with their it united states siblings. this provides assistance in an emotional financial support. it provides care. times when this may be the only remaining member nuclear family. am concerned this will no longer provide a meaningful opportunity for them to participate for their siblings.

what opportunities will they have to be able to immigrate to the united states. bill is thet of the exchange for allowing the spouses and children to be excluded in exchange for the recapture provisions of unused thes and balance with increase in economic related visas. there are other avenues of different work related these is that a sibling would be eligible for regardless. there are different avenues they could receive.

>> i have a hearing relating to comprehend the immigration reform. they obtain legal strategissadna legal system. it would give points that allow them to score high enough to be able to come in. to answer that hypothetical right now. this is a big improvement. i think this is a major

improvement. we will deal with a lot of the backlog of. >> there are probably some ways which we can allow for these so thatbers to come in the issue can be addressed. i look forward to continuing to work with you. >> thank you. thank you. thank you for joining us. thank you for the excellent work that you and your agency have done over the last week in dealing with and apprehending the boston bomber. it has been a time of great trauma. we're all celebrating that he was apprehended so quickly. >> thank you. >> and would like to ask questions both dealing with

process in dealing with border security. my office received the text to this bill at 2:25 a.m. on wednesday april 17, five days ago. the bill as a hundred 44 pages long. is dealing with a very complicated topic. when did your office received a copy of this bill. >> after it got any morning. >> since you have been heavily focused on matters such as letters such as this, had you time to read the bill? >> i had read the bill. i know many sections of the bill fairly well so i was able to

scan it. it is been a busy weekend. >> a very busy. >> restaurants of border security are sometimes interesting. seems they pushed to a decrease as evidence that border security is working well. i'm always a little skeptical of these statistics that proves the end up being put forth. but we ask an initial question. -- let me ask an initial question pure have apprehensions increase or decrease in? from last year to this year.

overall, they have stayed the same with respect to the southern rio grande valley where we had had an increase primarily central mexico. i he did he it this. >> i am a little puzzled. earlier this month he told .eporters in houston sentencing this is done the signs of success.

>> both are accurate. is up 40 years ago. the key is to sustain that. you just said a minute ago they were higher this year than last year. referring to border wide. one is referring to the rio grande sector. when the traffic is higher now. actions are being taken. is borderlineony apprehensions are down. >> what i just said is it is about level with last year expect with respect to south texas.

>> had did gain a measure border security? upon them having a sound metric for who is attempting to cross this country illegally into is being prevented or apprehended. have to the action figure out what is happening and measures success? why is it the department no longer uses the much of operational control? >> we look at a number of things. we look at apprehensions. we look at crime rates. both inboundizures and outbound. at reports from those on the ground at the border.

it is a whole host of things. one of the things we are really looking for is what is the trend. this is all in a positive we can also make decisions about where we can put more resources. texas is problematic that we will see these very quickly. >> fell 1 to thank you for the outstanding job that you're i just want to thank you for the house standing job your doing. this bill is going to be

available for everyone to read for three weeks. i would also say that we had senator grassley. he introduced in 80 pages guns fell at about 11:00 -- a gun on the very day. i did not set any cry about it. time forbe plenty of everybody to prepare amendments for members of this committee and for members of the floor. this is just like health care. it is not. we started debating this before it was even introduced.

i think i speak for the eight of us to put this together. last time we cannot have a committee process. the floor.llapsed on compromises could have emerged. we may have avoided that. processes andst our interests. nobody is trying to rush this through in any way. aboutd now like to talk the border. in 2000 sent the mayor member that some john mccain and myself into the border bill that had a supplemental approach of about $600 billion. time it had eight effectiveness rate of 68%. out of every hundred people that

authorities saw, they are able to catch or turn that 68. after the border bill was passed, it went up to 80 to zero. is that correct? >> billion, a maxium of $6.5 billion over the next six years. can you tell us what kind of security impact will have? doesn't seem very logical we're going to get a higher rate than we have now? >> i think that is true. ismy view, the key

technology and air cover. theability to implement best technology at the border as we're doing so now. to speed that up can improve where we are now. border.t to the it is a vasthat border. i am from the tiny state of new york. it is by letting the people. you can figure out where the people are going and apprehend them 50 miles inland. the drones have the ability to follow that. we need more drones. we need more air.

>> i do not disagree in the technology. the actinometer has always been one of the major problems in calculating. >> again, how we tighten up security. it is clear that tamerlan tsarnaev had no record of him going to russia are coming back .ecause his name was misspelled it was a foreign airline. under our bill, everything will have to be a passport or machine-read. that undere guess our law the authorities would know that tamerlan was going to russia? ing on the l a p

down to customs. anything that makes a requirement for machine readable gets manual in putting out of the system and improves security. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it was a revelation on the border. we saw an apprehension. >> they knew exactly where the person climbing the fence would go. it was amazing. >> i think the woman heard senator schumer's accent and thought she was in new york. [laughter] it was a good trip. it is always good to see the

border. you talked about apprehension rate. there has been concerned about metrics. is it true what we're calling for in the legislation is pretty much what you do now? someor schumer quoted statistics from several years ago. now you have more resources to do it. the net effect. .e know how many people across we can get a better figure theire. captures thember nature of the border. that is why i say there is no

one metric that is a number 42 or some sort. these give you a picture of the border. they are informed by what we are seeing. >> given where we are already, you'll be able to achieve the 90% effectiveness rate? >> the border provides for a commission and additional resources. it is not just at the border. it is improving the overall system. border.o-called second do you see any issues with andng e-verify mandatory the time frame called for?

>> it is achievable assuming the resources are available. we will implement the bill with the timeline you have given us. provisions called for in the bill -- do you see those as helping in that regard? >> absolutely. we are already doing things like photo match. very, very helpful. too incentivizing states put their drivers' licenses into the database. >> the current concern is that e-verify can tell if a social security number is valid.

how does this legislation deal with that? implement a us to system that creates a lot on a on-- that creates a lock the social security number. >> "i have my job so i will my number so cannot be used elsewhere." thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. senator sessions. >> this bill gives the secretary extraordinary discretion if it were to become law about how the law would be carried out.

that causes me a great deal of concern. 2011, i share with you my concerns. the department has been more focused on meeting with special immigration groups then supporting them and helping them accomplish with the law requires in this country. have you met with those officers and you said no. officers et with the of the ice association? >> have a spoken to border patrol officers in the field, yes. you should have

met with them in the field. ice employees had dropped. were you aware that the morale at ice had dropped? >> that is a real concern of mine. >> are you aware in lawsuit has been filed? a vote of no-confidence in the ice director was held. nothing has been done to deal with the failed leadership at that agency. increased its enforcement efforts and has installed real priorities for the first time.

the director gets criticized for asarting too many people opposed to not enough people. that is a difficult job to have. removed more people and we now have secure communities installed. more.ould not disagree that's not what the officers are saying. let me ask you this. she was interrupting my comments. >> i apologize. >> i do not believe that is accurate. he testified that agents are prohibited from enforcing the law. filed aofficers have

lawsuit. i have never heard of a situation in which a group of all bank officers sued -- a sued.of law officers they were saying the oath they took to enforce the law is being blocked and that this is undermining their ability to do what they are sworn to do. >> may i respond? there are tensions with you in leadership. this is what i expect. law enforcement agents will enforce the law in accordance with the guidance they are given from their superiors. that is fully asked throughout

the department. that would be consistent with all law enforcement. those are set their superiors. crane testified thissaid agents shall do that or the other. they were not allowed to do with the law plan it allows. you are not entitled to set policies -- disagree with i almost everything you have said. i think it does point to why this bill needs to be passed. doinge want our officers

traffickers on narco and money launderers and others who misuse our border and immigration system by having a process by which those in the country legally can pay a fine, register so we know who they are. visa system the . that but i'mte worried about the vigor of this department. i would note removals' by ice are down. there was a memorandum that basically undermined prosecutorial -- that is why morale is down.

>> i think the secretary has answered the question. let's see how the lawsuit comes out. senator franken. chairman.ou, mr. i want to thank you for your department's response to the boston bombings. arethoughts and prayers with you. you did an outstanding job in quickly tracking down and capturing the perpetrators. thank you for your work. i will focus on some things that i'm worried about in the bill. is a giantl package step forward.

ringtone] sorry. i believe this is going and long way to fixing a broken immigration system. it will help minnesota of businesses and families. my first question is about the e-verify mandate in the bill. will hurtat errors small businesses. big companies have the resources to deal with this. smallm worried about the family business were the human resource department may also be the accountant and sales force and your spouse. you don't have the time to deal with a system that is not working 100% properly.

businesses in minnesota employs 20 people or less. the department says one legal authorized worker is wrongly rejected, at least temporarily. that rate is lower than the last independent audit. will the department be able to maintain this error rate? intention and to drive that error rate down. the ability of individuals to self check so they can go

online and see if the entry is adequate. we have set up a system where things can be corrected if an error occurs. you have seen that error rate diminished substantially. we'll continue to work in that regard. >> you believe you'll be t ore with that error rate better? >> yes. kickedout of every 140 out. somebody who was a legal worker. that sounds low but you wouldn't want that working on your credit card or your car starting assumption. it took legal workers an average

to get those errors fixed. a member what 34 years of service was flagged as an illegal worker and it took him two months to resolve that issue. is it critical that e-verify have these low error rates if it will be mandatory for every business in the country? >> yes. it will be important to continue to achieve that, senator. that was the old 2009 -- i own that dhs has its

figures showing the lower error rates. areink independent audits what we need here. we are discussing this bill now. would you pledge to release that data in that study? the report -- >> we will make that available. >> i want to thank you for your staff about my bill. this is a party for me. .- this is a priority for me thank you so much. mr. chairman? durbinderstood senator

was here and wished to ask some questions. if not -- if you'll hold just a moment. i think he may have had to step up. senator lee. .lease keep it to five minutes >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to correct something i said earlier. it talks about the tax liability issue. i should have referred to pages bill. 69 of the the standard is ambiguous as to the backould trigger tax liability.

i have given a citation error. the standard would give you discretion to identify what documentation that would have to prove to show they had fulfilled their obligation to pay any back taxes. i wanted to talk about another provision. this one is on page 63 of the bill. it deals with who is eligible for rpi status. thoseves eligibility for who have received orders of deportation but have absconded, meaning they fled after having been ordered deported, or they had returned to the united states following an order of

deportation after which they return to their home country or another country. i am concerned about this that this might reward condon that seems to be in clear violation of a court order. policy?gree with this >> right. i have read the bill but not pages.not memorize the a provision inis the sense that if somebody has been removed from the country and it would otherwise have they would be rpi,

allowed back in the country, or i can allow them back in the country. stt is one of the balances ruck in the bill. >> ok. of thatr recollection provision is discretionary. >> my understanding is the intent would give us the ability to waive some and that was pre mislead removed -- that was previously removed. >> ok. from the date of the enactment, the bill prevents anyone from being detained or deported or apprehended as long as they appear eligible for rpi

status. its last as much as three or three and a half years if the extension is granted. agese heard from some ice that their work has been hampered at times. people will claim eligibility simply by saying, i qualify under doca. the concern has been expressed that this could amount to a de facto enforcement holiday where detained ore apprehended so long as they words.er the magic >> it is not my intent to take those extensions, assuming i'm here.

we have every interest in implementing this as quickly as possible. has a felony conviction or if they are a national security risk, they fall within our priorities. they would not qualify for rpi. would handle that effectively as we enforce this new regime. secretary.u, madame senator durbin. >> thank you. your title says it all -- homeland security. i have said and i want to

do you believe the passage of this bill will make america safer and more secure? >>yes. absolutely. million undocumented people will step forward as to who they are and where they live and where they work, be subject to a criminal background checks. with that knowledge, we will be a safer nation. >> we will have more identifications, more metrics. security on that end. that group that is in

tobo, they are reluctant come forward when they have been a witness or a victim to a crime. allowing them to get that pathway will alleviate that problem. >> it is clear we have made historic investments in the security of our border between the united states and mexico. i like to address a couple other areas. one relates to those seeking asylum. there is nothing in this bill that weakens the responsibility of your department to establish through law enforcement and intelligent checks whether those

seeking asylum would pose any threat to the united states. >> that is right. as you go through the application process, there are a number of times where checked and are reject an re-interviewed. >> i know you're aware of my interest in the dream act. i want to plug you and the president again for doca. there was criticism about whether or not those who've gone through the doca check should be closer to provisional status than those who have not. >> i thought that was a good

part of the draft bill. we have already checked them a variety of ways. process uses a good pilot on how we would do the process.ger rpi has been that e-verify discussed. i want to go to the other. a holderstes to vis who come to the united states. has been unable to track their departure. so we close the loop. part of the immigration reform moves us to a new stage where it

to increase safety we will develop the technology to established that. your level ofme confidence that we can reach that in the near future? isthe electronic exit system very consistent with the plan we have already submitted to the congress. goal as achievable stated in the bill as drafted. publicly and id hope that you agree -- the worst thing we can do is nothing. to step back and just accept the broken immigration system. resign ourselves to that as our future -- i thing that is the

worst outcome. >> i could not agree with you more. i think the draft bipartisan the embraced the principles president enunciated. it deals with security and economic growth and vitality. it is a bill i am hopeful will move forward. .> thank you very much hal and entha senator whitehouse have asked for a second round. i know you have another matter.

>> thank you for your helpful testimony. thate to ask a question perhaps you may have entered in a different way. if you had three points where you think this bill should be hanged suez to be improved -- it is a bipartisan bill. i am a supporter and i believe strongly that the worst thing to do now would be to do nothing. every measure can use some constructive scrutiny. i wonder if you have any suggestions on how this bill might be improved. separate than create a

is to have one fund security fund so the operators and the secretary have more flexibility with those monies. i would recommend that. we'll work with committee staff on this, to make sure the flows andbout funding which accounts is accurate and clear. we want to make sure it is consistent with the appropriations. we will work with your staffs on that part. >> in terms of the tension or the judicial process by which these cases are prosecuted, so

suggest, can you changes that would make it fairer? >> one change in the bill reflects a policy change we're in stolen right now. counsel for those who are deemed mentally incompetent. impasse of of the the most recent incident in boston, i know you have addressed those in the course of your testimony. i wonder if there's anything we can do to raise these issues so they did not become embroiled in the short-term, misperceptions that might result. >> there is a line of

misinformation out there as to the two brothers. this is an ongoing criminal investigation. there is going to be a classified briefing on thursday for the senate. let's have that briefing and thatf any questions arise have any relevance to immigration. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i will call on myself. welcome. .t is good to have you here many express my appreciation for the stellar way about how you responded in boston.

i know you have a soft space in your heart for law enforcement folks. andway people pull together the impressive deployment of a wide range of local, state, and federal capabilities very comprehensively and very smoothly. were an important participant in that. well done. it will do we have heard complaints about enforcement,order the palms of continued illegal immigration across the southern border. i think that is a refrain that

departs a little bit from teh he fact. some of thep accomplishments of the obama administration in border security. if you could give us the highlights reel and some of the statistics and metrics that you look at. i would like to have that be part of the record. >> i have worked at border for a long time. this has to be sustained. this is an important part of this bill. we have record manpower now between the ports of entry. we've completed all but 1 mile of fence.

he end result -- we have a problem in south texas which we are fixing. our seizures for drugs and contraband are up. the the great help of supplemental appropriation several years ago, we have been the to do quite a bit southwest border. >> the deployment of resources have increased? >> to record levels. >> amount of legal immigration as a result has been reduced. >> that is correct.

law enforcement is one reason. another major reason is the driver to get a job. that is why this bill helps us at the border. another driver is how long it takes to get a visa. this bill deals with that problem. >> good. thank you very much for holding this hearing. i do think it is important the record reflect this administration has brought up this country's game in terms of border enforcement. .> thank you >> i have to ask the senator from rhode island.

did you serve at the same time together as a u.s. attorney's or attorneys general? >> i think we went to the same law school. >> we did that as well. senatorhe outsider -- grassley. .> i want to make a statement it involves the discussion you had with senator graham. ou said that tamerlan's name database.ng on the that is something i want to get to the bottom of. let me get to the first question. the border security bill applies to high risk sectors.

on define high risk based the apprehensions in a particular sector. we know that your department has no operational control of more than half of the border, means apprehensions will remain low in those sectors. acceptablek it is for the border to be secure in certain areas? >> operational control is a phrase that should be associated with the ability to deploy resources to your high- risk areas. there are parts of the border we do not need all the resources. we want the ability to of technology and air cover and to be able to focus and move those around to the areas where the

risk is the highest. that is not operational control but it is looking at a whole range of statistics and measures. thes in that high risk for bill to ignore large sections of the border? -- we divide the border into nine sectors. there are some sectors that have a lot of miles but are sparsely populated and rarely crossed. they're just difficult. bare. not leave them th we want to surge resources in the trafficking routes. >> no mention of the northern

border. only the southern border is included in the trigger. in light of what happened yesterday in canada, can the northern border be ignored? >> i think it is part of the discussion. it is a different type of border. misspelling on the of tamerlan's name and what that meant. i think it would be better if we could discuss those in a classified setting. i believe the draft bill accounts for security on the northern border. >> thank you. -- if youeople today know -- are in removal

proceedings? >> i would have to get that number for you. beshould these people allowed to apply and receive legalization? >> if they would meet the requirements for being an rpi, i believe they would be allowed to register as such. >> you agree with that. yes. support the intent, havew many people today ignored the order to leave the united states? thehy don't i get you number for those that we have fugitive warrants. gunners behese ups

allowed to benefit from the program -- should these apps bsconders be allowed to benefit from the program? that is drafted and how it would be a work in progress in terms of family unification, that is a good part of the bill. >> this will be my last question. i do not know how certain you are about what the fees will bring in. i hope to have a handle on cost to some extend. able to bewill be prepared to cover all costs through fees and the

administration will not seek taxpayer money to pick up the tab. does that sound reasonable to you? >> we to work with the committee about how and where the fines dego. there is a good program for estimating what the costs are going to be. >> thank you. cruz has more questions. then we will stop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the topic weevisit discussed about border security.

proponents argue it provides for real metrics for border security that areiggers meaningful. the testimony that was provided this morning is not encouraging in that regard. we talked about operational control. the conclusion was that 2000 73 of the roughly miles of the southern border were under operational control. that was not an encouraging metric. statistic, thet department simply decided to stop relying upon that statistic.

, the department now relies on a holistic group of which to me seem reminiscent of justice lewis powell -- that measured everything and has a great deal of subjectivity in it. if there are no objective metrics, if it is the subjective assessment of a host of factors, how can we have any confidence that the border will be secured and that any trigger will be meaningful? >> i think you have to step back waslook at where the border even six or seven years ago. there are a whole host of statistics that help in that

regard. there are numbers that give you an overall picture of what is happening at the border. the overuse of the metric or it was easily -- misunderstood. berefers to your ability to able to respond in a highly trafficked areas. this bill pretty much says, we're going to continue to build on the security you already have. we hope that we can get flexibility with respect to how that money is spent. if we use the, effectiveness rate and if that

does not reach a certain number in the highly trafficked areas, we will have a commission that will recommend what additional steps would need. >> if border security is to be measured by a multi factored knowsthat this committee borders conclude security is satisfied. i would suggest it's not a meaningful trigger. can you describe a circumstance in which the evidence would be borderat dhs says security is not there. he said apprehensions are at the lowest level in four years.

i think, senator, we will agree to disagree on the predicate for your question. we would continue to look at all the measures. we would be deployed in the technology plans. those plans are important and sector specific. they will give us even greater visibility as to what is coming across the border even now. >> my time is expiring. i will like for you to answer the question i asked. what the evidence would have to show for dhs to show that ?riggers were not satisfied >> the triggers would not be

satisfied. .> thank you, madame secretary >> we talk often on issues. i appreciate yours and the president's commitment on immigration. spent a long discussion -- more than one and i thank him for having so many issues of importance before this committee. he was kind enough to say he did not want me to be bored. debate, ford to the ame, there will always be reason why we cannot go forward on immigration reform. the terrible event in boston or

any other thing. it is not denying reality to say we cannot go forward. now is a good time. we have had eight senators working on this. my wife is a daughter of immigrants. ishink of how this country improved and made better by immigrants. the most powerful nation on earth cannot face up to reality lawfine day law -- find a that faces reality, then shame on us. a growing number of senators

believe we can. we want to be the conscience of the nation. thank you for being here. we stand in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> the senate judiciary

committee wraps up their hearing on the immigration bill. it will be available on our c- span library. ets.ave some twe >> we welcome your thoughts, twitter.com/cspanwj. more live coverage on c-span today. a hearing on drone strikes and targeted killings. that will be over on c-span3.

in under gaveling in five minutes for general speeches. 6:30.corded votes at baucus -- word is he is not going to run for 14.lection in 20 lawmakers will question officials of the whether the fbi is handled information after interviewing tamerlan tsarnaev after his six months stay in russia. dianne feinstein said her panel will try to sort it out. by house will be briefed

security officials on tuesday and the full senate later this week. senate .loor coverage on c-span2 >> the museum is meant to help a visitor relive the first eight years of the 21st century. the museum explains the decision-making process that i went through as president. and we hope the museum inspires people to serve, to serve their community or their country in some way. we really did not want to be a school. we wanted to be a do tank. i don't know if there is a lesson there. i do know that laura and i decided to go in a different direction with the -- apart from the museum with a component from which programs would emerge. >> watch the dedication ceremony of the george w. bush presidential library and museum

from southern methodist university in dallas live thursday morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, c-span radio, and c-span.org. -- and tune iner earlier at 6:20 a.m. eastern on c-span for a conversation with the former first couple. >> the u.s. house will be shortly.veling in helping people get health insurance and offer rise in the drawdown of the helium supply. they will be back briefly at 2:00 p.m. we'll have it all live few here on c-span. the senate is taking up the in net sales bill. span2.n find that on c-

more capitol hill coverage coming up on c-span3 with a hearing on drones and targeted killings. president obama is in watching today at the white house presented the national teacher of the year award. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., april 23, 2013. hereby appoint the honorable bentivolio to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate.

the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate ontinue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. the marine corps association as founded on april 25 of 1913 in guantanamo, cuba. john, then a lieutenant colonel, headed the marine corps association's first executive committee. he and his fellow officers declared that the marine corps association would published the history of the marine corps and disseminate information concerning the aims, purposes

and deeds of the corps and the interchange of ideas with a betterment and improvement of his officers and men. the marine corps gazette was introduced in 1916 as a vehicle used to establish the marine corps association as the professional organization of all marines and to establish a venue to debate issues of importance to the corps and disseminate military art and science to associated members. in 1976, the leather necker association publishes of leather neck magazine of the marines, merged with the marine corps association in a partnership that has proven beneficial to both organizations. in 2009, the marine corps association founded the marine corps association foundation in order to provide more support to professional programs for marines which include awards over 10,600 were provided in be 2011 alone, battlefield

studies, professional military education forms and commanders' unit libraries with the books and the commandant professional reading list. n june, 2012, when the moneyford point marine corps got the gold medal, they stepped to the plate to find funding so each of those historic marines could receive their own replica of the commemorative medal. in its first year of existence, m.c.a. boosted membership of 91 and today there are over 80,000 members worldwide. the marine corps association and foundation should be commended for their exemplary work and commitment to active duty reserves and wounded marines. also, note the outstanding efforts in providing ourl own marines with the same programs as they provide for active and reserve marines. for over 100 years, participation in the marine

corps association has supported our active duty marines during peace time and wartime. in closing, i want to recognize the centennial anniversary of the marine corporation association and its foundation and honor the contributions they have made and continue to make to the lives of marines stationed throughout the world. mr. speaker, with that i'd like to close as i always do. i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i ask god to please bless the familiar legals of our men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who have given a child who died in afghanistan and iraq. i ask god to help the senate and congress. i ask god to please bless the president that he'll do what is right for god's people and god's people tomorrow. remember the tragedy in boston and texas, dear god. i close by saying, god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america, and

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, last week americans across the fruited plain filed their taxes with everyone's favorite government agency, the i.r.s., or the internal revenue service, as it is called. but the i.r.s.'s job is just beginning. now, they will put their police hats on. recently, mr. speaker, i learned something disturbing that most americans probably are unaware of. let's say the i.r.s. decides to snoop around and secretly investigate a citizen named joe and his taxes. right now the government can go to joe's email provider, demand his email records and check on his finances that are stored in the cloud all without joe's knowledge or consent. government agencies have the authority to snoop around through private emails, photos

as long as there are 180 days old, no warrant required. how is this possible? well, it's called the outdated electronic communications privacy act, ecpa. ecpa was passed back in 1986, the stone age of technology when most americans didn't even own a home computer, much less use email or store things on the cloud. day we have tweets, g chats, instagrams, yes, the cloud. it has been replaced with a world of free, instant, unlimited email storage, high-spreed broadband and cloud computing. americans keep many of their most personal possessions online indefinitely, photos, school records, financial fnses, personal plans and even weekend shopping lists. in other words, big government can force a private company to turn over private information of a citizen without their

consent, without a warrant and without that person's personal knowledge. this circumvents the fourth amendment's prohibition of searches and seizures of person's pouses, papers and personal effects. government should get a warrant if it has probable cause a crime is being committed. the fourth amendment still applies to the internet. the government can't tap our phones without a search warrant. it can't read our mail without a warrant or enter our homes or search our records that we keep in file cabinets. if a person stores information in a bank, safety deposit box, the government must get a warrant to go through it. but ecpa authorizes the government to read emails and social media message or any property stored in the cloud. without a warrant and without evidence that someone has engaged in criminal activity. myrick, that's an invasion of privacy and a front to liberty

to every -- mr. speaker, that's an invasion of privacy and a front to liberty to every american. why should this be different than paper stored in a cabinet? it isn't. we must update to keep the privacy of every citizen from the government. information stored in the cloud will killed cloud computing by destroying confidence in u.s. -based services and driving businesses to other countries which actually have stronger privacy protections for people who use the cloud. that's what c.e.o. of data foundry, a texas-based founder has warned. companies will take their businesses to other shores who protect personal privacy. mr. speaker, this is the united states. we were founded on the ideals of universal liberty and the right of privacy. that's why representative zoe lofgren and i introduced bipartisan legislation to modernize the outdated ecpa. our bill protects internet

users from intrusive and unwarranted big brother surveillance. the bill requires the government to show probable cause and obtain a search warrant to access electronic communications just as it would to tap somebody's phone or go through somebody's mail or look in their safety deposit box. the government would need a warrant to compel service providers to produce documents stored in the cloud and to intercept or demand disclosure of personal location information generated by cell phones. aztec nothing continues to evolve and improve, congress must ensure that the fourth -- as technology continues to evolve and improve, congress must ensure that the fourth amendment is not violated. technology may change, but the constitution and the fourth amendment does not change, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. costa, for five minutes. mr. costa: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today in recognition of the armenian genocide. tomorrow, april 24, marks the 98th anniversary of the horrific armenian genocide that took place approximately between 1915 and 1923. he citations, the history, the atrocities are well-documented. they have been recognized by the european parliament, by his torians around the world -- historians around the world. sadly, i believe the united states congress has not gone on record, has not gone on record despite repeated attempts in

recognizing this horrific genocide, the first genocide that took place in the 20th century. and as we all know, history has a way of repeating itself. both for the good and for the bad. and while the armenian genocide was the first in the 20th century that was documented, we all know what took place later with the holocaust and the attempted genocide of the jewish people. and today throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century, we see repeated attempts where genocide has been practiced in africa and in other parts of the world. it is not enough simply to condemn those actions but rather as a people, we must come together and acknowledge

that there have been very, very difficult and sad times when man's end humanity to their fellow man has taken place. certainly that has been i think an example of what has taken -- what has occurred after the -- both he holocaust and museums here in the united states and in israel to document what took place during the holocaust. the attempt to make that similar reflection on the armenian genocide is still a work in progress. this week the armenian communities throughout america will remind us once again that this injustice to mankind should not only be acknowledged and documented but should never ever be forgotten.

and that's what we will do tomorrow in recognizing the 98th anniversary of this armenian genocide. i know because i grew up in a community in the san joaquin valley with many wonderful armenian families. as a young boy, i learned about the history from our neighbors, y friends, and while sadly the turkish government today is still in denial as to the events that took place between 1915 and 1923, i would hope someday, just as the german government and others have recognized the fact that there are all parts of our history at we just assume forget are overlooked, but we know if we recognize them, we have greater assurances that they will not repeat themselves.

and that's why i rise today, to recognize this very sad, sad event that took place in the 20th century. i think we reach out to all the armenian communities, not only in the united states but throughout the world and stand with them in realizing that their suffering, their pain and the loss of some one million-plus armenians has been all of our collective loss. so i want to close by saying that tomorrow we recognize that 98th anniversary, we continue to urge our fellow members of congress to recognize that we ould go on record, in my view, to indicate just as we have gone on record on numerous other important events that

have taken place in our nation's history and in world history. and i think tomorrow all americans will stand with our armenian americans and armenians throughout the world in recognizing that in fact this genocide did take place and our thoughts and hearts and prayers go with those who have lost their lives. i yield back the balance of my time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

had been scheduled to testify last week. she came in this morning and spoke to the judiciary committee and we'll show you as much as we can until the house returns at 2:00. >> good morning, everybody. in a tight e're

schedule. the secretary has to testify in front of appropriations later today, but i do want to commend you, madam secretary, and the men and women of the department of homeland security who work so hard on the coordinated national security effort in oston. i've had middle of the night iefings on what has happened and the way your department, local and state police and others worked together, i think as a model for the rest of the world, especially how quickly verybody was able to move. the successful capture of the remaining suspect, of course, is why you weren't here that day.

when we talked i well understood what your schedule now a number of republican senators were not part of the bipartisan concerns e effort for and they testified about the workability of this. you have been here in february and testified extensively about this effort. when i asked you to come back, you said you were perfectly willing to. i think it's a testament to your longstanding commitment to eforming the immigration system. you returned just two months after your last appearance here what's happened . the last few days

so it would be easy to talk about last week. i remind all senators that this is their opportunity to ask are you directly about the border security, economic opportunity, immigration modernization act which, of course, is why you're here. immigration modernization , which is why you are here. this is a member of the cabinet int will be work -- vault implementing this legislation. and i repeat that you and president obama have done more in the first four years to andrce immigration laws strengthen border security than in years leading up to this administration. you have more than 21,000 agents on the border patrol. new technologies have been borders.d to the

therding to the report by migration policy institute, the united states now spends more than it does on all the other major federal law enforcement put together. think it is time to start talking about reforming the immigration system. we're doing more enforcement than ever before. tot should not be a bar having good immigration reform. that weng past time reformed our immigration system. we need an immigration system that lives up to american values. one that treats americans with

humanity. the mostshields vulnerable among us. ourthat helps to enrich committees. formmend several senators their extraordinary work here. are --ncerned that some what some are calling it triggers for getting green cards -- i do not want people to move out of the shadows to the st uck in some kind of underclass. we should not make people's future status depended over a situation in which they have no control.

i believe we have to end the discrimination of gay and lesbian families. i am concerned about changes of familie system for whether touestion spend billions on defense is the best use of taxpayer dollars in a country that we are furloughing air traffic controllers because we cannot pay for them. people have been brought to this country by other loving parents. we're creating businesses of eir own like google and intel and yahoo!, companies that then

hire hundreds of thousands of americans. our nation continues to benefit from immigrants. my parents inculcated in their children. the function of our immigration system affects all of us. senator grassley. >> thank you for the work you were involved with in boston as well. we welcome you, madam secretary. we appciate you being here today to discuss the immigration bill. the bill before us is a starting point. the bill is not perfect.

i am encourageto see that one co-sponsor of the bill is taking suggtions on how to improve the legislation. we hope to have the opportunity to do just that. there are 92 other senators that must have their chance to improve the bill. we have a duty to protect the borders. will notrned the bill secure the border and stop the flow of illegal migration. yesterday i brought up the language in the bill. with theion begins southern border security and fencing. .he undocumented become legal

once the secretaries certifies that the fencing plans are greened and completed, cards are allocated to those here illegally. are put onl wkers a different path. today, the bill would put no pressure on this secretary to secure the borders. you have stated the border is stronger than ever before. you have indicated that congress should not hold up legalization by holding up border security measures. subject hasr on the said borders must be secured. short of that, this bill makes

the same mistake that we made in 1986. i'm interested in hearing about wh problems the build fixes in .ur current immigration system the clearing of backlogs, what does the bill do to fix the system? i'm concerned the bill provides authority to you and your department and your successors .n almost every other pa is language to waive certain provisions of the law. that could add up to 400. the secretary may define terms as she seems fit. there is no accountability for

the money to congress. she can determine what evidence is successful. 1693 inds me of the delegations of authority that makes it almost impossible how to predict the law would work. we have a situation that congress should legislate more and delegate last. ess. i have not advocated that we quit talking about immigration reform. we should carefully review the immigration laws to insure we are addressing critical national security issues. the potential terrorist attacks of the u.s. canadian north are

reminders that our immigration system is related to our national security matters. hijackershe 9/11 overstayed their student visas. people stayed below the radar. it has been reported the older boston bomber travel to russia. entry exitens the system. it does not deploy a biometric .ystem to land ports we will continue to rely on airline personnel to properly type a name into a computer. if the background checks or anything like they were in the

boston bomber, we are in serious trouble. checks on theund 12 million people who are here illegally are riddled with problems, it raises serious questions about the ability to investigate such individuals. we heard the immigration bill would weaken asylum law. courts are cloggedith asylum cases. it is no secret that terrorists are trying to exploit the system. individual whose case was denied based on the one-year bar to get their case reopened. they can still apply despite the

current provisions that bars any relief under the immigration law. the bill provides exemptions for certain criminals, making some eligible under the bill. they may still apply for the provisional status. about the system --the situation about theestimony immigration and customs enforcement agent about the inability of our agents to do their jobs. the group refused to hear from enforcement agencies. it seems unthinkable that law

enforcement would be left out of the room when the bill was put together. deals withthe bill student visas. a terrorism case has come to light that may involve an individual that overstayed their student visa. i look forward to the testimony today. >> than you. mam secretary, it is over to you. >> i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the need for common sense immigration reform. let me say a few words abouthe attack in boston. remainughts and prayers

with the city of boston. us here aref committed to finding out why this happened, what more we can do to prevent attacks like this in the future, and making sure that those responsible face justice. we will learn lessons from this attack. we will apply those and we will emerge even stronger. law enforcement joined together and shared resources. many had been trained in improvised elosive threats and many had exercise for this scenario. the response was swift and effective. i think the people of boston showed tremendous resilience

over the past week, and so did america. after 10 years of training and equipment and improved information sharing, our cities and nation are stronger, more prepared and better equipped to face a range of threats. this legislation will build on these gains. thedraft bill captures principles enunciated by president obama in las vegas and reflects the spirit necessary to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. the bipartisan work will strengthen security at our borders by funding t continued deployment of manpower and proven effective surveillance technologies along the highest traffic areas of the southwest border.

these efforts have already reduced illegal immigration. they must be strengthened and sustained. the bill helps eliminate the jobs magnet that fue illegal immigration. it holds employers accountable and requires the monetary use of employment verification. employment verification supports strong border security. it provides businesses with a clear free and emission means to determine whether their employees are eligible to work here. we promote fairness, prevent and we protect, workers from exploitation.

the bill also provides a pathway to earn citizenship for the millions of individuals currently in our country illegally. many have been here for years and contributing to our economy. knowing who they are is critical to public safety. it must be evidence from the outset there is a pathway to citizenship that will be fair and a tenable. .- fair and attainable dreamers and immigra farm workers will also be included. those who complete the requirements will be able to achieve lawful status more quickly.

the bill will improve our legal immigration system. visas.ses the cap on thes it continues to protect vulnerable immigrants. it creates new temporary worker programs while protecting american workers. businesses must be able to maintain a stable legal workforce if our economy is to continue to grow. this will pressure on the border and reduce illegal flows. the majority of americans support these common sense steps.

we are ready to implement them. we can and we will achieve the core provisions of the bill. we stand ready to work with the congress to achieve this important goal. the introduction of th legislation is indeed a milestone. i look forward to continue to working with you and to answering your questions today. >> thank you. thank you for a busy time being here. additional one-half billion dollars to build a fence along the southern border. ofhave built 650 miles fence along the border.

a 50 foot wall and i will show you a 51-foot ladder. have doneng would not anything about the case in boston. resources.ited significant gains have been made in the last four years. is half a billion dollars the mo effective way to spend limited resources? decides thatgress is where they want to put some money, we will comply. notould prefer having money so designated so that we can look at technologies, they can thatround-based, air based,

may be me fitting to prevent illegal flows across the southwest border. we would not so designate a defense fund per se. we would like flexibility. >> i assume there is an annual maintenance cost. >> operation and maintenance costs. put in it.oles we're very good at building the infrastructure. we know what works better. it is not just building but maintaining. people's lifebout along the border. >> the last remaining mile of he fence

>> all that hearing online. changes to u.s. code. among the issues they'll deal with later this week, helping people with pre-existing conditions get health insurance and authorizing the drawdown of the government's helium supply. again, live house coverage coming up at 2:00 and then 4:30 here on c-span. the 2013 congressional directory is here, the latest listings for the house and senate. all the contact you need, district maps, committee assignments. also, information about cabinet members, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. it's $12.95 plus shipping and handling and you can order online at c-span.org. back on capitol hill later this afternoon, we'll have live coverage of a senate judiciary constitution subcommittee hearing looking at drones and

targeted killings. james e witnesses, cartwright. live on c-span3. >> the museum is meant to help a visitor relive the first eight years of the 21st century. the museum explains the decisionmaking process that i went through as president. and we hope the museum inspires people to serve. want to serve their community or serve their country and some -- in some way. we really didn't want to be a school. do-tag. to be a i don't know if there is a lesson there. i do know that laura and i decided to go in a different direction with the -- you know, apart from the museum with the component where programs -- from which programs will emerge. >> watch the dedication ceremony of the george w. bush presidential library and museum

from southern methodist university in dallas live thursday at 11:00 a.m. on c-span3, c-span radio and korea.org. and join us with a conversation ith the former first couple. yesterday, u.s. representatives markey and lynch had a final debate in boston. the defocused on national security issues, highlighting the boston marathon bombing. representatives markey and lynch are running for the senate seat for john kerry who became secretary of state. a special election will be later. the debate is just under an hour. >> gentlemen, last week we had a terrible reminder of our vulnerability to a terrorist

attack. as a senator, what specific changes would you pursue in our domestic and foreign policies o make us safer? >> first, i want to thank you for hosting this debate. i also want to thank my colleague, ed markey, for being here as well. before we begin, i just want to offer my condolences to all the families of all the victims and offer my thanks to the first responders, to the docs, nurses, to our citizens who i think behaved so valiantly in such a compassionate way during this past week. it's been a long week. again, my thoughts and prayers are with all those who are recovering. in terms of what i would do, i would continue to do what i have been doing on homeland security issues. i think one of the stark differences between myself and mr. markey is our voting record on homeland security. i think one of the great parts

of what happened this week in terms of the rescue and the coordination and the capture of these terrorists was the coordination between the different agencies, the joint terrorism task force. i voted to create the joint terrorism task force. mr. markey voted against that proposal. repeatedly voted for funding for homeland security. mr. markey voted repeatedly against that. so i would continue the priorities i have. it's probably why the firefighters, the nurses, the police are all backing me in this race. >> thank you, mr. lynch. mr. markey, 90 seconds. >> thank you. again, thank you to wbz, thank you for "the boston globe" for conducting this very important discussion. steve and i have been on the campaign trail for months but we both suspended a week ago because of this great tradgedeefment -- tragedy.

my heart goes out to all the families of the victims but congratulations to all the heroes who were able to help us through this incredible tragedy. it was a tragedy, but it was also a triumph. i think all of us in massachusetts are indebted to all who stood up in order to make this a very special week. we mourn the losses. we identify with those victims but we also honor the heroes. on the issue of homeland security, i served on the homeland security committee for seven years. i am the author of the provision after 9/11 that ensures that all cargo on all planes in the united states is now screened for bombs. the republicans oppose me for six years. i am the author of the legislation that requires the screening for nuclear weapons on ships coming into ports in the united states. the bush administration opposed me. i am the author of the

legislation which ensures that we have stronger l.n.g. security in our country. all the way down the line, i have made the fight to make sure whether it's nuclear power plants, chemical plants within our country that we learn the lesson of 9/11, that we ensure that we put those measures on the books and i had to fight the bush administration and i had to fight the industries that did not want to put the safeguards around those facilities that we knew were at the top of the al qaeda terrorist target list, and i was successful in putting those laws on the books that protect us today. >> all right, sir, thank you. mr. lynch, rebuttal. >> that's not what your record indicates, ed. when you look at the port security bill we had you voted no. when you look at the homeland security bill, i had 158 million dollars in an amendment to fund rail security. now, tonight we're hearing about threats on rail security

coming out from canada. you voted no on that. you voted repeatedly no on funding for homeland security. so -- and some of these votes, there were over 415 members, both sides, all voting yes, you voting no. >> you mentioned a couple. let him respond. then you can continue. >> look, i am the principal author of the legislation intended to make sure that rail security is much more secure within our country. i am the author of the legislation that moved toward ensuring that chemical plants, san francisco, are more protected within our country. o look, on our -- on our two records, i think that we both tried our best to work hard. my priorities, however, wound up being the law of the united states in order to protect the security of our country. >> go ahead. >> well, you voted no, though.

you voted no on the port security bill. you voted on creating the joint terrorism task force. that is the group that enabled our response. if special agent delora, if commissioner ed davis -- agent deslauriers, if commission ed davis and those couldn't work together, we wouldn't have the effective response that we had on that bill, on that bill. clearly, i voted yes. i don't know how you're going to spin this. i voted yes. you voted no. >> that's the fact. go ahead. >> look, i support the existence of -- and the creation of the joint terrorism task force. i don't know the specific circumstances at that moment in time, but i -- >> you seem to remember everything else. >> i don't remember that specific moment. but i will tell you, when there was an objection by the bush administration, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, ensuring the cooperation of those within the department of homeland security, i was the principal

person pushing the administration to -- in terms of the joint terrorism task force, ensuring there was complete cooperation amongst all of the agencies, i was in support of doing that. >> but when we've created it you voted no. that's what i'm trying to say. you can say you wrote this and wrote that, i understand policy, but when the issue came up to create that joint task force, i voted yes, you voted no. i don't know how you spin that. you're doing a good job trying. > well, the reason i know that on this issue that i stood up for the american people was that i was the one fighting in the trenches year after year. >> let me get this right -- >> let him finish. >> ok. >> go ahead. >> so the other 417 members of congress, including myself, we weren't standing up. you and the nine others that voted no on this stuff, you were. i don't get that. so every single member of congress, democrat and

republican, that supported funding for homeland security, that supported having a coordinated effort between federal, state and local officials, we all voted for that. you voted against it and somehow you're the champion because you voted against the bill which created it. >> i will tell you this, steve. if i did vote no, the reason i voted no was that they were excluding a provision that would have made the bill even stronger. that would have been the only reason why i was going against it. >> so it was good enough for 417 members of congress, but you, yourself and nine others voted no. i mean, you know -- >> this is after 9/11. even from representatives from new york city that had thousands of people killed, they voted yes. >> and i'm telling you right now, there are times, yes, when i was one of only two people that voted no. for example, on port security. i was one of only two people that voted no because i did not

believe that the bill was strong enough. yes, on this issue, i am a hard liner in terms of ensuring that the bill is -- >> extremist, i would say. >> not at all. not at all. >> when the safety of the -- >> one at a time. please, go ahead. >> when the safety of the american people -- think of how many ports around the country, from california all the way around the gulf coast up the east coast, every single person who represents a port voted yes on the port security bill except for you. >> again, i will tell you -- >> i will move on. >> look, when i added my provision to ensure that there was screening for nuclear weapons on every single ship in -- incoming to the united states of america -- and that was my amendment -- every single republican voted no because the cargo industry did not want the shipping coming

into our country to be screened for nuclear weapons. that is my vote. that is my amendment. that is my law. and that is a bill which every republican on that conference committee -- >> i'll give you 15 seconds each and then move along. >> look, let's be clear. this is the port security bill for every single port in the country, ok. there were over 400 votes, including every single representative that represents a port, so it's the safe -- look, south boston, east boston, those are port communities so any danger in those ports affects the people i live with. and same for the port of new york, new jersey, all around the country. you're telling me that you and one other person are the only ones that voted no on that bill and the rest of us were wrong? >> i want to continue here, john. because i will tell you, for example, on the l.n.g. tankers coming into boston harbor, making sure that they get reened 10 miles off of the

coast of massachusetts, making sure that people like one who jumped off an l.n.g. tank in 1999, making sure that other potential terrorists who had been coming into america through that everett terminal no longer could jeopardize our city, well, i'm the one who led the effort to ensure that the l.n.g. facility was secure. i'm the one that led the effort to make sure that now those tankers in our port of massachusetts are screened 10 miles off the coastline -- >> let him have his turn. >> look, the port security bill, you voted no on that. you voted no with one other person against every other member of congress, democrat and republican. republicans represents ports as well. the whole thing about, you know, going 10 miles out, that was after and that's separate and apart of what we're talking

about here. in is the core security needs of the country for funding of it, ed. this is actually funding of security. >> again, there is nothing that i would not vote to fund that would protect the port of boston or any other port. >> you voted against all of it, though. this is the homeland security appropriations bill. >> again, that issue, again, goes to whether or not the bill was strong enough. maybe you can say that i was wrong. >> you got to be kidding me? >> no. somebody has to say that something isn't been done well, and i stood up to say that. by the way, i was all alone on l.n.g. tankers for years. all alone on nuclear power plant security for years. all alone in making sure that we screen for the cargo on planes that all passengers fly in. i don't mind being alone, i don't mind standing up. i don't mind losing year after year after year to make sure the right thing needs to be done to protect the security of our country. >> gentlemen, i'd like to move

on. you can return to this topic later as you choose during your open periods. you'll go first here, mr. markey. the obama administration has chosen to prosecute the surviving suspect in the bombings in the federal court system. instead of before a military tribunal as an enemy combatant were where they have fewer constitutional protections. did they do the right thing? 90 seconds, sir. >> yeah, i believe that president obama and his justice department are completely committed to ensuring that case. is done in this we all heard president obama last week. he said there is a part of boston in him. he said that justice would be done in this case. if in the opinion of president obama and his justice department, the proper place for prosecution is here in the federal district court system of the state of massachusetts,

i believe that the court system here in massachusetts can provide that kind of a venue in order to hear this case. so i defer to president obama. i defer to his justice department if in their judgment this is the proper place in order to conduct that trial. >> thank you, sir. mr. lynch, 90 seconds. >> john, i think that we do have sufficient laws in our iminal system to prosecute terrorist number two, if you will. i think that the effort to classify him as an enemy combatant may actually complicate the issue. i've actually been to guantanamo. i've been to gitmo. i've been involved in that whole process in trying to find a way to actually prosecute those individuals as well. i think in this case we are not lacking evidence in terms of the prosecution of this individual, and i think fully

we have very competent prosecutors at the federal level that will be able to handle this case and come to whatever punishment that we feel is appropriate. >> rebuttal if you'd like it or we can move on. >> move on. >> all right. thank you. next question from cynthia. >> last year the house voted to extend the foreign intelligence surveillance amendment act. as you know the five-year-old law that expands the leeway intelligence agencies have to use electronic surveillance in terrorism investigations as well as to shield their supports sources and methods from disclosure in court. you were both on opposite sides of that vote. why did you vote the way you did and what does it tell you of the differences between you two? >> mr. lynch. >> we had several votes on the fisa bill over the last 10 years. so which vote are you talking about? >> well, we're talking about the one in 2008 to re-authorize

and extend the leeway -- extend the leeway that it was given. >> i have to ask you again. we have had a number of bills we extended for three months, 10 months. >> this is last year's vote and how -- >> and how did we vote. >> you voted yes and congressman markey no. >> what was the duration of the extension? >> it was -- >> i don't know. >> here's one of the problems. i have consistently supported the one-year extension so we continually have an act of oversight of the fisa -- fisa -- the foreign intelligence surveillance act system. i have voted against it a couple of times when we tried to extend it for four years and we don't have people coming back. the idea is that we have to keep those agencies in close checks so that congress can continue to oversee them. however, however, i do believe in a system that has judicial

oversight. that's the key here. if we do have intelligence that there is an impending attack on the part of terrorists and they do need an enhanced surveillance system, whether it's a wiretap or a mobile wiretap or going into emails, things like that, they should be able to apply for that if there's life at stake, but it should be subject to review immediately by a fisa court, an article 3 court. that's the dance that we do with these agencies. the reason -- on some occasions i vote against it because they try to jump that for four years, give that authorization for four years, and i'd like them coming back every so many months to make sure they're operating under the law. >> thank you, mr. lynch. mr. marky 90 seconds. >> when there is no sunset on the law, when it's just permanent, that means congress doesn't come back to review it. that doesn't mean that -- that means we cannot provide the oversight. we cannot ask the questions. that's why ias